In 1953, a new play by Samuel Beckett entitled “Waiting for Godot” was first performed in Paris. It is, without getting too involved in the plot, the story of Vladimir and Estragon who spend the entire two act performance sitting at a table and, as the story suggests, wait for the arrival of the title character. Of course, it never happens. They play is not really about Godot so much as it is about the reactions and behavior of Vladimir and Estragon as they wait. Boredom, frustration, and even suicide figure in the narrative.
This play comes to mind as I look out into the cool blue water of the lake. Here, art imitates life. Any picture or description of this land remains a true representation of its natural attributes – rocks, trees and grass. In the metaphysical world, however, life imitates art. As yours truly believes in the Lockean precepts of freedom being endowed by one’s Creator, the practice of politics seems to belong properly to that world.
Before Monday, the questions being asked were whether the Tories would finally get their majority, and whether the NDP would get their breakthrough. Now, the question being asked is whether the venerable Liberal Party will survive? On this issue, there are as many opinions as there are people offering them.
The choice for Liberals is essentially that to either fight or to fold. There is no middle ground. Either you are committed to the organization’s survival, or you take your toys and go home. Assuming that it is the will of the Liberal Party’s supporters to fight on, then the bigger question must be “for what?”
Parties may be vehicles for the attainment of power, but ostensibly, they are vehicles to promote a vision and a comprehensive platform for a society. The problem with the Liberal Party of today has been its fixation with one to the detriment of the other.
More than any other party, the Liberal Party has been defined more by its leaders than by anything else. When you are a centrist party, you will lean left or right on many occasions, so ideology is not so rigid, and therefore not a binding feature.
For over a decade, Pierre Elliott Trudeau cast a formidable presence in the party. In many ways, he and the Liberal Party became synonymous with one another. His departure from the stage was analogous to the death of Queen Victoria, when people who lived their entire lives under her reign wondered what came next.
Ideally, those at the top prepare for contingencies and change. They recognize that things must be different and we should all bloody well get on with it. Alas, that does not appear to have happened with the Liberal Party.
Like Vladimir and Estragon, they sit in solitude on an empty stage “Waiting For Trudeau.” They select leaders who ‘served under Trudeau’ or, in the case of Paul Martin, a man whose father ‘served with Trudeau.’
Time passes forward and they choose Stephane Dion, a francophone professor pulled into cabinet after a perfunctory byelection (just like Trudeau). He lacks Trudeau’s charisma, and so he his dropkicked in favor of Michael Ignatieff, whose career, writings, and entry into politics also mirrors that of Pierre Trudeau. Monday night’s result reflects the success of that choice.
Now, we hear people tout the possibility of a new leader in the MP for Papineau, who does not have the resume of a Pierre Trudeau, but has the surname and DNA of the great man.
Without disrespecting any of these men, and their talents, the problem is with a party that spends an inordinate amount of time asking “What would Pierre do?” Like religious sects, there is much handwringing and forelock tugging about the Trudeau legacy, and the best way to preserve the faith. And, like religious sects, there is always the ecclesiastic battle between choosing a leader either on merit, or by inheritance.
The Trudeau legacy, in truth, was a mixed bag, and for every Canadian that looks upon it with a warm and fuzzy feeling, there is at least one other who feel the bile rise with the mention of his name. Just take a trip to Alberta if you doubt this fact. Beyond that is the uncomfortable reality that no Canadian under the age of 45 was ever old enough to vote when the man was last on the ballot. To the greying zoomer crowd, he may have been the embodiment of an age, but to many others Pierre Trudeau is just a name in the history books, like Diefenbaker, Mackenzie King, Laurier and Macdonald.
Without sounding too mean-spirited, the real problem with the Liberal Party is that it was too good at selling its own hype. Unfortunately, it was its own major consumer of the mythology it crafted. In convincing Canadians that the Trudeau legacy was indispensible to the nation, it convinced itself of its own indispensible place. More than a party, it has seen itself as an institution.
But institutions change, as they must, to remain relevant to their purpose and to their constituency.
Politics offers no guarantees. The party I first became politically active with, technically, does not exist. On the other hand, I have never felt that my point of view or priorities were not well served within its successor.
The assumption that the Liberal Party defines Canada was hubristic and, as we have seen, self-destructive.
So, why care?
Well, despite the current situation, the Liberal Party does represent something unique in Canada. More important than the legacy is its talent and its potential. The Liberals I know feel passionate about their party, and proud of its accomplishments. They will argue that without the Liberal Party of Canada, they will not have a political home.
For those reasons alone, they have a purpose to go forward. All they need now it’s a reason for others to embrace that dream.
